Funny you should ask. I have been sitting on this for a while to check some of it out and it does appear to check out. The source is impeccable. So without further ado Angel Eyes Writes:
|
I make no bones about being disgusted with the Free Speech Coalition. This is due to a number of reasons, including fiscal mismanagement and questionable use of membership money in the past which seems to be every bit as true today.
Did I nearly forget to mention that FSC takes credit for everything while doing nothing? Well let’s give them some credit here, shall we?
The FSC has had 3 Executive Directors in 3 years, and at the end of 2008 recently issued its 2007 Annual Report. The report was created by FSC International, an unfortunate choice in names but apparently an unaffiliated company out of San Gabriel. While the exact cost of the 4 page report (including cover) is unclear, industry professionals estimate it to be between $12,000 and $18,000 for a whole lot of nothing.
According to the report, the FSC took in nearly $1 million ($968,245) in revenues and paid out 85% of that to a bunch of vaguely named expenses which smack of slush funding for personal pampering.
Take for example the $300,000 paid for “Lobbying and alliance.” Their Washington D.C. lobbying firm The Raben Group (which has yet to do one God Damned thing except for take Executive Director Diane Duke around to some offices to make introductions), was paid a whopping $100,000 just on retainer. The FSC’s California lobbying firm Capital Alliance was paid $40,000 for the same year and they actually killed several pieces of legislation which attacked the industry.
Keep in mind that California is the single largest location for the nation’s adult entertainment industry. At the same time, California lawmakers have been attacking the industry with attempts to tax them out of existence, censoring material, excluding adult films from state grant money, prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from performing nude, and more. But when the most important anti-piracy legislation came up, which would have protected the industry, the FSC did nothing.
On the federal level nothing has happened since 2257, and rumor has it that while the FSC is paying D.C. triple for doing nothing, it has lost the contract for its California lobbying firm and the FSC is ineligible for reconsideration. I’m just guessing but that usually means something really bad had to go down between them.
What happened to the remaining $160,000 that didn’t go towards lobbying? That was paid to some “alliance” efforts, such as pampering the jetsetting FSC crew and putting them up at luxury hotels every time they had to visit D.C., Sacramento, or San Francisco. Add to that the $114,180 spent on “Management and general” (a.k.a. staff retreats and luncheons) and we have at least 30% of their entire budget spent on nothing but fluff.
Then there is the payout of $114,180 for fundraising that brought in just $41,300 from fundraising events. Anyone who is willing to pay $2.50 to get $1 in return is stupid.
Another $144,269 is totally unaccounted for in the report. One thing is for sure, it isn’t going towards defending any of the industry leaders who are giving up their life’s saving in court to fight on behalf of all adult entertainers. The total amount spent by the FSC on legal issues was just $74,904—or less than 8% of the overall budget.
What was the total amount the FSC spent on things which provided absolutely no benefit to any of its members? About $700,000, or 2/3 of its entire budget.
No wonder the FSC membership numbers are in the toilet as people peel off and jump ship, because it is being driven into the ground by incompetence. The FSC should be disbanded at once and its management forever banished. |
One Response
WOW! If this is what you consider to be “an impeccable source,” I can’t even imagine how wrong your speculative stories must be. Virtually every “fact” in this article is incorrect and can be very easily proven to be false. So, let’s correct the record, point by point.
• In terms of the cost of the annual report, you claim that “industry professionals estimate it to be between $12,000 and $18,000.” “Industry professions” can “estimate” all they want, but the actual cost of the report was $1,132.50
• You claim that the Raben Group was paid $100,000. Again, you are WRONG, by about 40%–not a good margin of error.
• You also claim that the Raben Group “has yet to do one God Damned thing except for take Executive Director Diane Duke around to some offices to make introductions.” Those introductions to organizations like the MPAA, Universal Music Group, NBC Universal, the Sony Entertainment Group, Warner Brothers Entertainment, EMI Music North America, Sound Exchange, etc. enabled FSC to host a piracy summit to develop strategies for protecting intellectual property rights. Those introductions to organizations like the Gambling Association, the Gaming Association, and representatives of the alcohol industry have enabled her to collaborate with other industries fighting federal and state legislation and regulation, e.g. sharing the financial burden of fighting the Child Protection Registry.
• Your write, “it has lost the contract for its California lobbying firm and the FSC is ineligible for reconsideration.” Again, wrong. In an attempt to ensure that it is receiving services commensurate with the fees it is paying, FSC terminated its relationship with its California lobbyist and instead has contracted with someone who has a proven track record of successful advocacy. While the old lobbyist was busy insulting law makers (on this very site), the new lobbyist was establishing constructive working relationships with legislators. The new lobbyist actually understands that you can’t insult someone and then expect them to do you a favor.
• You assert that $160,000 was spent on “pampering the jetsetting FSC crew and putting them up at luxury hotels every time they had to visit D.C., Sacramento, or San Francisco.” In the past year, Executive Director, Diane Duke made five trips to San Francisco. During four of those five trips, Diane slept on her son’s couch in his small Japantown apartment in order to save the organization money. The only FSC funds spent on a hotel room in San Francisco were at the Holliday Inn for the Cybernet Conference—hardly the lap of luxury. Moreover, while in San Francisco on FSC business, Diane has never even rented a car—SHE TAKES THE BUS—certainly not for her own comfort or convenience, but to save the organization money! Diane has made two trips to DC. Once, out of frugality, she stayed at a dormitory-like facility at Gallaudet University. On the second trip, she stayed at the Doubletree. For this year’s AEE, Diane decided that the room rates at the Venetian are too expensive and has reservations at the Gold Coast Hotel (Anyone ever heard of it? I doubt it.).
• FSC’s other expenses include significant investments in the success of the industry: e.g. the Georgetown Economic Services Report that was used for the 2257 comments, the services of Kelly Drye (a DC firm that specializes in Federal Rules and Regulations), lobby day, testimony in front of ICANN concerning .xxx, a new database, etc.).
• You assert, “No wonder the FSC membership numbers are in the toilet as people peel off and jump ship.” Again, you are wrong. This year’s FSC membership numbers are stable—and, given the state of the economy, one might argue that “stable” is success. Clearly you wish that people were jumping ship, but wishing it does not make it so. The numbers tell the real story.
• FSC is a membership organization—a 501 C6. It is accountable to its members only. If you were a member, I’m sure they would be happy to answer your questions.